How do you go about ending a two turn truce? As the person who ends the truce, do you have the initiative (atacking first)? I'm currently in a few two turn truces and I always wondered how to end it without causing some bad blood.

Let's say it's round 20 and it's your turn. You decide to end the truce which means you can't attack for two rounds (rounds 20 and 21). As the other player what are your options? Does the other player need to wait two rounds as well so that he/she can't attack? The question that come to mind is: what if it's round 20 and the other player has already taken their turn (before you), can they attack you in round 21? It just seems unfair to me that the person who doesn't break the truce gets attacked first.

I realise that the truce is a "two-TURN" truce which means that there should be two turns of no attacking before it begins. Is this how people typically interpret this? I'm sure there has been a large number of misunderstandings because of this. It seems to me that the person who breaks the truce has the upper hand because if they declare the end of the truce before they take their turn (and after the other's turn), they have the right to attack first which is quite advantageous.

Because of this, I've leaned towards truces until round X where you can attack on the round after (unless renegotiated before). Perhaps there should be some kind of clause in the negotiation where whoever breaks the truce can't attack first???

Would love to hear people's thoughts on this and/or any other interesting truce deals that they may be making with other people.

I personaly like offering something like "what about a truce? 2 round notice, the one who break the truce gets attacked 3 rounds after"I obviously share the same concerns with you. The advantage should belong to the one that did not break the truce.

From the time that the truce is agreed upon the next person in the truce begins the truce agreement generally in my experience. So if you have three players A,B,C for example. If A and C agree after C's turn to the truce then the Start of A's turn would be the first turn of the truce. So if it was agreed to last for two rounds then it should go.A goes C goes A goes C goes....truce is over.

It is often best to clarify this while making truces.

You could also for example say: Lets make a truce at the start of round 3 until the end of round 5. (3 round truce). Then you know once the game log hits round 6 the truce is over.

Or

At the start of my next turn lets have a truce that would last for two rounds. This gives you a truce for two of your turns and two of theirs. Your third turn after you agreed upon these conditions would no longer be under truce conditions.

The person who breaks the truce should get attacked first imo, that's the way I always play (unless I specify it ends at start of round xyz at the start of the truce) - Trying to make it clear when you're making the truce is a good idea i.e. 2 rounds notice, whoever ends gets attacked first...

Other interesting truce deals....When you're in a stale-mate with, say 4 (or 5) players, and everyone's getting bored, especially on a large map, like Hive or World 2.1, you can team up i.e. red and blue try to take out whatever the next 2 colours are (green and yellow?), then whoever makes the last kill gets first strike, do work according to the sizes of players to make it reasonably fair i.e. if red and green are big, they do more work in their team... it would only work if you are playing with decent people though, and everyone's cool with the idea. I've tried it 5-10 times before, and it's worked well, always ends the game. (in foggy games, there's some guess-work in finding fair teams).

I agree with those who said that if you break the truce then you should allow yourself to be attacked first.

Just because there is a truce does not mean that you should leave yourself completely vulnerable. A two round notice gives you some time to prepare for the hit but always maintaining troops against the opponent that you have the truce with is best.

When the time comes just give notice and wait for the attack. If it is a two round notice, whether he has attacked you first or not, just attack as planned on that second round after the notification. All notices should be given on the players turn. So long as you held your part of the deal, gave notice and waited for him to hit you first, there should be no problem.

The only thing is that I personally do not like two round notices because a lot can happen in two rounds. I like to give notice on my turn (one round notice) and whether he attacks me or not I attack on my next turn and that's all she wrote.

When starting off in a large map, on flat rate or no spoils, I'm sometimes open to suiciding my 3 stack of troops for the same favour from the player that is trying to take a bonus in his own area. Obviously, they will need to have a 3 stack in the bonus area that you're targeting. This really only works in the first few turns so don't forget to call in the favour before the stacks on the other side of the map may become more important to your deal partner. It's essentially a tool to help speed up the process of acquiring a bonus early on.

When starting off in a large map, on flat rate or no spoils, I'm sometimes open to suiciding my 3 stack of troops for the same favour from the player that is trying to take a bonus in his own area. Obviously, they will need to have a 3 stack in the bonus area that you're targeting. This really only works in the first few turns so don't forget to call in the favour before the stacks on the other side of the map may become more important to your deal partner. It's essentially a tool to help speed up the process of acquiring a bonus early on.

You remind me of my early days when I played many flats on World 2.1. I used to suicide those troops without even telling anyone in those maps. For example, if I was starting on N America and 2 other players were starting at Mexico and S America, I would always suicide my S America troops against 4th players' stack. The point was to help S America rise fast and pose a threat to the guy in Mexico."The neighbor of my neighbor is my best friend"

We've all been in a 4-man stalemate and understand the patience necessary to finish the game. I wanted to know if any of you have tried to offer someone an alliance where if you two managed to take the others out together, both of you will stage 5 x 49.9% battles (24v25) and whoever takes at least 3 of the five wins the game (the other concedes). The leader may want to defend to get the 0.1% advantage

I'm currently offering this in one of my games and the others don't seem to want to take me on. I'm the clear leader and I feel that I'm offering something quite fair to whoever takes it. Perhaps my lead is not large enough for the others to take me on on my offer. The way I see it is, we started off with 8 people (12.5% chance of winning each) and the four of us managed to eliminate four players which has increased our chance of winning to 25% (strictly through n number, nothing to do with game positioning and troop strength). I'm offering second or third a chance to take a 50% stab at winning this game and I'm very surprised that they haven't taken me up on my offer.

I like truces, I really do. They've won me many games before. It's just that it's so much of a hassle that I don't do them anymore. I kinda avoid them by playing escalating, purely because there's all this etiquette. We all know etiquette is extremely subjective, ergo pointless, in this game. Whenever I play Flat Rate or No Spoils I use diplomacy all the way, but no truces anymore.

Good luck to anyone who does, though. You know you'll be disappointed sometimes, so if you still keep it up, I applaud you.

i usually play team games, but when i do play solo, i do like truces as well.

usually i declare a 'truce until round x' and if we didn't negotiate again before the truce ends, than it's fine to attack. Although in some cases a truce may end early if the common foe already died before the truce ended, in which case it's often normal to just continue attacking, especially if your temporarily ally is the only target left.

I've never heard of giving someone 2-3 turns warning about breaking a truce. I feel like 1 turn is enough. I'll generally say "hey [color], I'm planning on ending our truce next turn" so that they can prepare for it on their turn and can expect an attack when it comes around to me again.

I think that's fair. If you have about the same amount of troops or even more on the border, then you're already prepared for the truce to be broken, so 1 turn is plenty of warning.

If your border is not very well defended at all, then that's your fault for putting way too much trust in one of your opponents. Even when I'm in pretty reliable truces, I still make sure to keep an eye on those borders just in case. If I see any type of troop build up or movement then I already start assuming that player is thinking about breaking the truce, so I'm generally ready even if they don't give me any warning at all.

I mean, seriously, what do you expect? The guy you have a truce with can only win by eliminating you. Of course he's got his own agenda. Anyone getting mad over broken truces must not really understand the whole point of the game - which is to eliminate EVERYONE ELSE. If you really believe your borders are safe just because someone else said so, you deserve to lose for being so naive. lol

BeauJyles wrote:How do you go about ending a two turn truce? As the person who ends the truce, do you have the initiative (atacking first)? I'm currently in a few two turn truces and I always wondered how to end it without causing some bad blood.

Let's say it's round 20 and it's your turn. You decide to end the truce which means you can't attack for two rounds (rounds 20 and 21). As the other player what are your options? Does the other player need to wait two rounds as well so that he/she can't attack?

Hello!

From just reading "two-turn truce", here is what it seems like to me:

It's your turn. You say, "Truce over in two turns." You can't attack this turn.

Other guy's turn. He can't attack. (1)

Your turn. You can't attack. (1)

His turn. He can't attack. (2)

Your turn. You can't attack. (2)

...Truce is over. He can attack you in his next turn, and you can also attack.

I've always been good at breaking truces before the other one does. I usually break it a turn before agreed upon, or directly after it's proposal. For some reason that is not appreciated hehe. I don't recommend doing it with people you play a lot against though.

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

BeauJyles wrote:How do you go about ending a two turn truce? As the person who ends the truce, do you have the initiative (atacking first)? I'm currently in a few two turn truces and I always wondered how to end it without causing some bad blood.

Let's say it's round 20 and it's your turn. You decide to end the truce which means you can't attack for two rounds (rounds 20 and 21). As the other player what are your options? Does the other player need to wait two rounds as well so that he/she can't attack?

Hello!

From just reading "two-turn truce", here is what it seems like to me:

It's your turn. You say, "Truce over in two turns." You can't attack this turn.

Other guy's turn. He can't attack. (1)

Your turn. You can't attack. (1)

His turn. He can't attack. (2)

Your turn. You can't attack. (2)

...Truce is over. He can attack you in his next turn, and you can also attack.

The idea is that the player who wants to end the truce has to allow himself to get hit first. That is the whole idea behind ending a truce honorably.

But as to the number of rounds or when you can hit I disagree.

ONE ROUND TRUCE NOTIFICATIONOn your turn you announce that the truce is over. (1)

The truce partner can then attack you first right away on his turn. That's his choice. (1)

Now you attack him, the truce partner back. (2)

The notification is to give your truce partner the chance to hit you first. Now let's look at...

TWO ROUND NOTIFICATIONOn your turn, you announce the end of your truce. You deploy to prepare for an inevitable assault. (1)

Your truce partner now deploys to where he intends to strike you at (your weakest). (1)[Note] Your truce partner can not attack you right away but must wait 1 round first.

Now you prepare to counter depending on the truce partner previous deployment. (2)[Note] The Truce breaker can not attack the truce partner yet because the truce breaker is the one who gets hit first.

The truce partner can now assault the truce breaker first, as the truce breaker has now had two rounds to deploy and prepare for an inevitable assault. (2)[Note] If the truce partner fails to attack on this second turn then that is his option or failure. The truce breaker can now assault the truce partner legally having given the Notice. That he did not read the game chat or was unawares of the announcement of the end of the truce is his own bad judgement call.

So to me it is clear that whether it is a 1 round notification or a 2 round, the point is to let the truce partner hit you first. In a two round notification you simply have the opportunity to see where he intends to hit you at first and prepare a counter strike or to reinforce the regions that will be under attack.

In a 1 round notification you are simply holding back one round giving the truce partner the chance to hit you first right away. At any rate before a truce is ended you try and prepare as best as you can for it. Normally you would know that some one is about to break the truce when you see an escalation of troops in bordering regions.

But the point is that the 1 or 2 notification round is the restriction of that player, (the truce breaker), who ends the truce first. The other truce partner can attack right away in a 1 round truce or must wait 1 round in a two round notification. Either way the player who breaks the truce must allow himself to get hit first.

But if the other truce partner fails to attack first, then he has been warned and to strike him on the agreed upon round limitation is then OK.

BTW: None of this is written down anywhere in CC rules but it could be in the C&A forums.

It just makes logical sense that if you are the one who wants to break the truce then you should give your truce partner the opportunity to strike you first. Whether you build up to the moment or announce it out of the Blue. If you agreed to a 2 round notification that that is the number of rounds that the truce breaker agrees to do nothing in the way of attacking the truce partner. On the 3rd round the Truce breaker can attack in a 2 round notification as agreed.

In a way this is also incentive to not break the truce. And this truce is also based on one's own personal honor. A dishonorable player will soon be seen for what he is by the CC community through the forum threads. And I also believe that there may be a sort of rule against cheating in this fashion which would have to be found out through the "Cheating and Abuse" threads.